tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2555123713188257297.post6867020449160940044..comments2023-12-14T21:55:11.213-05:00Comments on Mitchell Langbert's Blog: 14 AGs File Suit Against ObamacareMitchell Langberthttp://www.blogger.com/profile/00722335216553899790noreply@blogger.comBlogger4125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2555123713188257297.post-37549239212551633472010-03-25T12:54:28.246-04:002010-03-25T12:54:28.246-04:00HCR is not constitutional if you believe in the Co...HCR is not constitutional if you believe in the Constitution. If you believe that the Supreme Court has the right to create the Constitution as it goes along, then pretty much anything it decides to say is Constitutional. But the Constitution does not give the federal government the right to tax people directly, without apportionment. Nor does it give the federal government the right to set up a health plan. Nor is a health plan relevant to the ordinary operations of government, which Hamilton argued gave it the right to set up a national or central bank.<br /><br />"The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people."<br /><br />Nowhere does the Constitution say that the United States has the authority to regulate insurance, to create or mandate insurance benefits or to charge taxes to individuals.<br /><br />If it did have that power, then why was the sixteenth amendment passed? If there had to be a sixteenth amendment to authorize the income tax (which incidentally, was declared unconstitutional anyway) then why was the sixteenth amendment needed? The sixteenth amendment reads:<br /><br />"The Congress shall have power to lay and collect taxes on incomes, from whatever source derived, without apportionment among the several States, and without regard to any census or enumeration."<br /><br />In other words, if the Supreme Court wants to say that health care regulation is constitutional, it can just as easily say that death camps for Jews are constitutional. It is simply a body of tyrants who issue authoritarian edicts, not a judicial body.Mitchell Langberthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00722335216553899790noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2555123713188257297.post-30767100253326662212010-03-25T05:41:38.901-04:002010-03-25T05:41:38.901-04:00The Interstate Commerce Clause is not the issue. ...The Interstate Commerce Clause is not the issue. The Taxation Clause applies and HCR is Constitutional. The "fine" is in reality a tax on individuals who do not have health insurance.<br /><br />The Congress shall have Power To lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises, to pay the Debts and provide for the common Defence and general Welfare of the United States; but all Duties, Imposts and Excises shall be uniform throughout the United States;Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2555123713188257297.post-830049098440415292010-03-24T16:26:30.408-04:002010-03-24T16:26:30.408-04:00I would love to see the circumlocution needed to e...I would love to see the circumlocution needed to explain how the interstate commerce clause justifies a law pertaining to health insurance, which we are not allowed to purchase across state lines.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2555123713188257297.post-44350757095537805832010-03-24T09:43:21.690-04:002010-03-24T09:43:21.690-04:00As an aspiring physician, I am honestly, honestly ...As an aspiring physician, I am honestly, honestly scared by this law. I really see now future for the medical profession. Innovation will grind to a halt, care will become more expensive, and rationing will be a virtual necessity under Obamacare. I don't know if America is going the way of Detroit as Gary North wrote on LRC today(http://www.lewrockwell.com/north/north828.html), but things are almost assuredly going to get worse.vakerajhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02479791534703115315noreply@blogger.com